ty OP, nice find

these hands are interesting because it shows how greenstein and negreanu are willing to put in extra money to prevent being bluffed on a later street. not that greenstein's flop shove was not the best play, its just that he said he did it in part to prevent being bluffed on the turn and of course negreanu explaining in detail how he turned his hand into a bluff on the turn for information.

You can analyze that T4s hand until the cows come home, but barring some live tells, Patrik's call was indefensible. Given Phil's UTG opening range (pairs/AJo+/most suited broadways.. he might not even open AJo there based on what I've seen), there's no way to construct a river range such that Phil is bluffing something with worse 40% of the time. I find the oft-said idea that he can no longer have TT-QQ once he bets the turn totally fallacious as well.

I disagree on so many levels. I think the way the hand played out Phil is only betting 80k with the top 10% of his best hand range. He's never going to bet that much on the river with less than 2 pair/a set and Patrick correctly sensed he was making a move.

i really liked robl's analysis

QT vs AA vs 42 hand is so epic

He MIGHT still bet with QQ (though its unlikely given the way he plays), but there's no way he's going for that thin of value with TT-JJ on the river. Or any pocket pair, for that matter, aside from flopped sets.

+1
especially the last part

This is cool, ty OP

thanks for links

Then you've drunk the Koolaid, but you're demonstrably wrong. Even if you were somehow certain Phil never bets AA or AK (because you have some implausible soul read that he'd bet 60k with those, and never 2/3rds it (since making transparent bet sizes against the best players in the world is such an awesome idea)), and only has KQ+/bluffs in his range, he does not have enough combinations of hands in his range, strictly based on his opening range in that position, to be bluffing something worse 40%. KQs/sets is ~15 combos. Phil's opening range is something like 22+,ATs+,KJs+,QJs,AQo+; I don't even think he has AJo usually. Take out the hands from that range that beat Patrik, and you're left with: AJs, ATs. Seven freakin' combos. Even if Phil's bluffing 100% - because the board is perfect for it - there's not enough combos in his entire range to be bluffs! And he could be bluffing with 55 or 66, trying to get patrick off 77-JJ!

Your sentence is a conundrum. Are you talking about the river? I think the odds of him betting QQ on the river are a bit more than "MIGHT", since he has second set and is only dating Jennifer Tilly, not channeling her.

But I was talking about the turn. He should still be betting TT-QQ on the turn. There's a ton of value/protection from pair+wheel draw hands, and the K is the obvious bluff card, so he can expect to be called light.

I agree that TT-JJ wouldn't be bet again on the river, but that doesn't matter. All the "he wouldn't bet that on turn" and "he wouldn't bet that much on river" logic in the world are irrelevant given that there's NOTHING PATRIK BEATS (except AJs or a rare ATs/JTs/AJo).

Just for barryg. Versus tom's exact holdings...

Board: Qh 4s 2s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 49.798% 49.80% 00.00% 493 0.00 { KsQs }
Hand 1: 50.202% 50.20% 00.00% 497 0.00 { AcAd }

Very slight favorite.

If you add in AT-AK of spades:

Board: Qh 4s 2s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 41.313% 40.95% 00.36% 2027 18.00 { AsKs, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, KsQs }
Hand 1: 58.687% 58.32% 00.36% 2887 18.00 { AcAd }

A decent favorite. Like 1.5-2.5% better than a standard coinflip..

If I add in only 1 combo of QQ to Dwan's range:

Board: Qh 4s 2s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 49.394% 49.09% 00.30% 2916 18.00 { QcQd, AsKs, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, KsQs }
Hand 1: 50.606% 50.30% 00.30% 2988 18.00 { AcAd }

Again a very small favorite.

Adding in 1 combo of 44 and 22:

Board: Qh 4s 2s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 59.381% 59.15% 00.23% 4685 18.00 { QcQd, 4d4h, 2d2h, AsKs, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, KsQs }
Hand 1: 40.619% 40.39% 00.23% 3199 18.00 { AcAd }

Now you're a decent size dog.

Also if you had the ace of spades, you could play it faster:

Board: Qh 2s 4s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 55.758% 55.76% 00.00% 552 0.00 { AcAs }
Hand 1: 44.242% 44.24% 00.00% 438 0.00 { KsQs }


Just seems like a little spewy to say that dwan never has a set here (he's calling 15bb and is playing 450 bb deep (assuming i'm right here that you're playing 500/1k ante 200)..

I mean, even if he has all the flush draw combos but only 1 combo of a set (out of 18 set combos), you're only a 50.6% favorite.

Although, I'm pretty sure i've seen you say that you should have just called and see what turn action would have been.

Board: 4c 3s 2h Ks Qd
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.077% 43.08% 00.00% 28 0.00 { Ts4s }
Hand 1: 56.923% 56.92% 00.00% 37 0.00 { KK+, 44-22, AKs, AJs-ATs, KQs, AKo, AJo-ATo, KQo }


---

56 games 0.005 secs 11,200 games/sec

Board: 4c 3s 2h Ks Qd
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 50.000% 50.00% 00.00% 28 0.00 { Ts4s }
Hand 1: 50.000% 50.00% 00.00% 28 0.00 { KK+, 44-22, AKs, AJs-ATs, AKo, AJo-ATo }


---

49 games 0.005 secs 9,800 games/sec

Board: 4c 3s 2h Ks Qd
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 57.143% 57.14% 00.00% 28 0.00 { Ts4s }
Hand 1: 42.857% 42.86% 00.00% 21 0.00 { KK+, AKs, AJs-ATs, AKo, AJo-ATo }




207,400 in pot to call 80k needs to be good 2.5925 to 1 = 27.83% of the time.

Try to come up with phil's bet flop, bet turn, bet river range that PA doesn't have 27.83% against.





Let's say phil's value range on river is 22-44, KQo/KQs, AKo/AKs, KK/AA. This is 4.7% of hands.

Now let's say he bluffs river with AJo/AJs/ATo/ATs 100% of the time. When you add those hands in, this is 7.1% of phil's river range. PA has a 43.08% equity vs that range. This also means that phil is bluffing 33.8% of the time.

Let's take away ATo/ATs. This is 5.9% of phil's river range. PA has a 30.19% equity vs that range. This means that phil is bluffing 16.9% of the time. Note that PA only needs 27.83% equity to make this call profitably.

Let's now take away AJs, Leaving only AJo in phil's bluff range (12 combos). Here, PA's equity 24.49%, clearly making a call -EV. Also, this is only 5.6% of phil's hands. Which means he is bluffing 13.85% of the time.

This means, if phil is bluffing the river ~15%+ of the time, PA's call is +EV.


And it gets even better for PA if he thinks Phil won't fire the river with anything less than AA+. Then phil only needs to be bluffing like 10% to make the call correct.

this. gg OP

I stopped reading at ATo.

Borderline, your analysis isn't very good. You seem to erroneously assume that if Laak can have AJo then let's just put it at 100% and the call is good. The point of that hand is that although Laak is playing hands like AJo that way a very small amount, there are a bunch of other hands that he could have, and if we weigh those against his value range, it comes out smaller that what is needed pot odds wise - because his value range is tiny (as you point out).

What you needed to be doing is giving a % for a plethora of hands that Laak will plausibly triple barrel against PA (and HL on flop) and raise utg with. A better argument would show that this need only happen a very small amount - and as long as Laak is always checking back one pair hands (say even AK and AA some of the time), then the call is a good one and not amazingly tough.

nit, eastgates fold with trips was the worst ever, especially vs dwan, folding trips on that board lol

Laak does not really have the widest valuebetting range on the river in that spot..

That is all.

1. Nice play by Dwan, well analysed, terribly played by both Eastgate and Barry (if I had AA I would check the flop, keep it small with so many players in. and with 24, I dont know, Id either fold flop, or call him down all the way, prolly the latter)
2. Robl seems like a nice guy, but his face is twitchy like Viffers, and his speech is horrible. His analysis was good though.
3. Daniels analysis was not so good, which it really never is, every hand analysis he makes seems to make me cringe at some point. How can it cost u over 100K to "find out if your ace is good". Why raise the turn? Why does he always think Dwans can bet at any random time with any random hand? Also, why does Dwan check the river?
4. If I were Barry I think I would have called flop tbh, and raise on a safe turn card. Not that he played it really wrong, but imo thats the best way he could have played the hand.

Enjoyed the videos and the production quality of them.

either stove it or stfu.

otherwise, i have no desire for what you have to say here.

also, if laak can have AJo here, no reason he can't have ATo here.

First, I'll admit I was a little off base when I was tossing around 40% as a sort of goal number. I'll grant the actual pot odds of 28% is significantly easier to hit.

Veil's point was that stove doesn't tell the whole story. Maybe based on his emotional state or gut feeling, Phil only bluffs 80% of the time with AJ. You can fiddle with combinations of AJ in PokerStove to some extent to mimic this effect, by putting in AcJc,AdJd,AsJs,AcJh,AhJd,AhJs,AsJc,AsJh or whatever instead of AJs,AJo, but usually not without sacrificing accuracy. (For instance, if you wanted to give Phil KQs 75% of the time, is that one combo, or two?)

Anyway, since you insist on a stove, I'll give you one ten times better than those ****bag ones you posted with no sets and ATo:

Board: 4c 3s 2h Ks Qd
Hand 0: 74.194% 74.19% 00.00% 46 0.00 { QQ+, 55-22, AKs, AJs, KQs, AKo, AJo, KQo }
Hand 1: 25.806% 25.81% 00.00% 16 0.00 { Ts4s }

If you drop AK -- and I think that within the realm of what's reasonable if the argument is that Phill is really very nitty -- you can get it up to 32%, which makes the call, "meh", at best.

But, then if he is really very nitty, you have to cut down his bluff rate, and you end up back around here:
Hand 0: 73.913% 73.91% 00.00% 34 0.00 { QQ+, 55-22, KQs, AJo, KQo }
Hand 1: 26.087% 26.09% 00.00% 12 0.00 { Ts4s }

Nice work douchebagging up the thread.

You have made a very compelling argument with your X=X-1 line of reasoning! I am totally convinved! In fact, with this astounding insight, it's now clear to me Phil can have A9o,A8o,A7o,A6o,A5o etc.! Patrik should clearly call, it's hugely EV:
Hand 0: 37.677% 37.37% 00.30% 370 3.00 { random }
Hand 1: 62.323% 62.02% 00.30% 614 3.00 { Ts4s }

I may be wrong on this (and I'm not going to go back through the episodes) but I remember at the time that show had established a pattern of Laak checking big hands on the flop (maybe Antonio says something about it). Obv, it doesn't happen always and the show selectively chooses interesting hands. In Robl's analysis he says that Laak is betting 100% of his range on that flop so it may just be the editing. But, if Laak is checking his strong hands often on the flop and rarely thin-value betting the river (another trend that they tried to establish on the show), then PA could reduce Laak's range to essentially busted hearts/air bluffs, KK, QQ and KQ. Now, I have no idea what PA is thinking and it probably was a live tell but I do think Laak betting the flop actually made it look more likely that he was bluffing based on what we saw on HSP.

wow nice find

The PAD Cash Game Director's Cut are great because we get to see these player analyzing their own hands. This makes it a better show than HSP imo.